Samet v Binson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Samet v Binson 2013 NY Slip Op 33809(U) June 25, 2013 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 15032/1998 Judge: Bert A. Bunyan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] Page 25 of 85 1503211998 Decision and Order dtd 1116114 At an JAS Term, Part aoftlm Supreme 01Ql't of du: s.teo!Ntw Yark,. held in aad far the Comlty of~ at tbe Co~ .et 3(i() Adams 8\11.tt. Blobklp. New Tork, w the 2$" day of JUIJOt 2013. PB.lSBNT: HON. BERT A BUNYAN. MlCHAst.SAMl!'r,as~oflh&ClltaleofAndmw Samec.~ 1'he.fbllgwina IMU!P'I mpnhm' l to 9 mad )1emln; Notice ofMQlionfOldcrto Show~· PetitbifCross Motilm.m Affidavils(M'im&afia.) All'D"*"t__ _ _ __ \ Oppmjng~(Aftirmatiom)__._,...,,____~- Rcply.Aft'idlMts~------~---~--',Aftid.m.1a(Affimlrdions) _________ Otticr,.,._____________ _____________ ,., Upon tho·~·~ f)laintiff Micbael Samet,. as ~ of the estat.c ot Andn:w s~ de.oeaacd. moves tot an onto:. pursuant to CPI.A 3212, gtaDting 'him SUDUmU.Y judgment dismiaaing each of the alleged countotdaims. 1 ·De.fimdlnt ·ISeac t 1 Plaintift'also oJaimltlmt "":no. ge1t\tinelDlf.crial ksue offact.reJJUdnsto be1rled. aacl plaintiff' is ennt1ed to Slll!JJNUY judgment as .a tnatter of law 'If Howevart court noUs that . . plaiBliffha&previo\l3ly moved.fbramutJllt)' judpcmt on the issuo ofllabili&J"(Santfl vBin.!tm, 19 AD3d lOOS {2010D. tbe rule ..-mat~ moticms i'Or summary judp!ent therefore .,... plaintilf~ preimtly acddqsmnmaryjudgmeat ontheiuueoflfabilit;y(aa 1.g~ /141naha. Vcrte & Bltw:,,._ Ltd. v Joseplt Mmra & &m.r. 91 ADM 69~ (2012)). Acoordingly. this court cansidel'a plaintifr1motioaonlyinsofaraitseeblUilllJlmy);id,g1:nentdimdasingdefendd'aco1lllla'Olaims. T • O ans Prtntl!d: 11212015 [* 2] 1503211998 Decision and O!'der drd 1116114 P0ge 26 of 85 Bin.ton m:oves .for a.n onler, pursuant to CPUl 3%12, granting him swnmary judpmnt d.ismining the IU1'lmded verified eomplaint. Ptocm1R141 HillfJl'1 Plaintifts decedent (and filtbot) GOmIQlltced the instantadlon on. Ma, 4, 1998, The original verltie4 compllittl asserted a QtUae ofaction agtUnst dcflmdant sounding in tnoney had and received; in essence.. alleging a outstaandiag debt balance. l)efendaatdld.Qot timely int~ an mswer, ud, eonsequmtly. on Novembet U, 1993. thi& oourt entered a default judamentinplaintiff'• favor. ~wasnotum'Vity inthiaaction until 2®'lf whm de(~ moved, by order to show ea.use, for an ~r ~'the detauitjpdgment. ~ motion and appellate ptacti~ enau.ed. T~timony and eo,nvinccd evidence adduced at a ttaverse bearing. held oa. Match 15, 2.007. a Judicial lies.ring Officer (raO} af this court that .vice of ptocen wu defective. Shortly ~after. plaintiff~ fl> reject tbe mo•s ~on; defendant ctoss~moved for an order. (1) ooniitttting tbd mcotnm~; (2) finding ·that this eeurt 18.Qkcd personal jurisdlmion over hbtq and, consequently (3) va~th'lgthe dcfauh judgment. By order-dated September 17, .2007"' tbia. court: ( 1) denied plaintiff's motion;.and Q) granted.defendant~s motion only to the extent that the cmnplaintwas dismissed, but with leaw fur pl!rlntitf to properly~ an amended pleading on dc.fendant within 120 day&1 1 Both partie& appealed from this order. which wa affirmed by the Appellate Division ma.re- (Samet v Bmarm; 61 AD3d 988 [2009]), ~ subseq-.tly l'noved tor leave to bil tnotion; by order dated Septmnher 19~200&, thia aourt 4'nied 1-.'ff to reargue. Th~er. pbd.nfill' lost an appeal ftom the o.-der denying ~t {Samet v BWon, 61 AD.3d 989 [2009]), 2 Printed: 1/2/2015 [* 3] 1503211998 Decision and order dtd 1/16114 Page27 of 85 Subsequently1 plaiatifr• decedent timely served an,d filed an amended veri&d eoqna\nt.3 In response, and on or about Navember 30. 2007~ defendat!.t UttotpQled a verified answer with counterclaims." Plainti:fr I father Stm!SC'}uutly died and the action WU consequently stayed. On July 18, 2008c1 plaintiffwas appointed the executor ofhil fatber~11 wtate, and, by ltiptllatlon • ordered by this court ML A\lgU#t 6,. 200~ the caption.wua$ellded to. roflcct the.~ of plaintiff. Ineetly2009.piaintiff'tnavedfor·~judgtttentandU.tendant~for dismDsai. By onter dated J'.a.nWlrf 20, 20 LO~thi&~om denied both 1J;1otions and otdere41bat the parties proceed With di~eey. 5 Oiscoveiy ensued, rmd on August 29. 20121 platntitf filed anote ofissue and ccnifkate orre.dincss, ind.icatmg t;bat the lnstaitt.ietion is "8dy· for trial. ~.each party moved for summary judgmel'lt. ArrllllU!ll* Mlllle By Plllln'/lffl" 911J11k1rl Oflib Jfotlan In support othanwdon!«.sun.muu:yjudjment4tsmiafngthe t.QUDtltdaims. plahJtiff tbartcteriz~ the counterclaims as sp.u:ri.O'QI. Specifically, plaintitrcontendst11'.t ttto:mtepd The amended ~c4 ~ assert&, in ~. 1he same claim in the otiginal complaint, but adds the allegation that <ntor fib(>~ January 1. 2:000. detendant voluntartly·~ an alleged "Pron'lissoryNote'' in favor afde.eedentibrthe prinelpalamount of~'.idndebtedneas ta decedent New ca.uses ofaetion anert. a:moqgothers:, •breach of.contract ad a ~u,trt sta.UJd. 3 4 lhe cow:rte:rclailns allege. in sum, that d«iedent was defendant's busiftess partner in the RDC Jewelry Company (R.DC}. an4. that ftom 1993 to 1996, detedentwnmgfully toOk ~cm of RDC cash. as well ·as Yarious items ofJewelry and piecio.us metal& Plaintift; in ma reply to the co~ asserts tbai t}).e subject items were ~ly il\lldeqaate. secmity, fbt tM Jl10!licJ. lent to defendant". i Plaintiff appealed from. the order~ summary judgonm.t and last (.me n 1, $lpm}. 3 [* 4] 1503211998 Decision and orderdtd 1116114 Page 28 of 85 facts underlying the counterclaim& are false. and~ in an a~ to "try to offset pJaini~frs legitimate: da.Uns fur monies lent arut not repaid, acoomn. stated) a4 so forth." Plaintiff sqggests tbttt il is inctedible that dcfelidlnt bas owed cieeedd (and plaintiff, as successor-in~lnterest)the pritJdpa1 sum oB9tRMl00.60:since 1996, but. ~dcfbndantwtitt'd until 2007 tc seek redress in court tbr the atleged.wmngthl behavior of deeedetlt. Plaartiff further claims that. contrary to detlmdam's SU$8e8ti~ it is ilotaJty· ab~ that hi5 father· had access to 'RDC's o~ cash or invt:ntory ofjewelry and precious t:ncta1s. Als«J, plaintiff aubmiis a copr of a handwriuen doeumet.tt. allegedly s.igcell bf defendant, whieh states that detcndantwaived bis dghttothe sul:ijeetPlateml tf 4efemiut did .not repay the debt tQ plaintift's &tiler witbin three week! Qf July~ 1997. Plaintiff alleges that deGnda:nt repaid no part of the l • in the specUied t• and,. t'lt«eforel" the sul)jeet co1laleral became tile property ot plamtiff's faf&l'f. Plaintiff asserts that he later rightfully sold the goods for a '~vagc valuen .rq>JtSmting mud1 1'5s than. the .®'bt balanc.e. Plaintiff' cla1nu that this hatldwrltten docmnent establishes that ®fendant's eoun.terelaiml $hould be dismissed. More: ~)'"° plaintiff susgests that defendant .would not have agreecl to provide wUatetal to plaintilrs l.ilthet ifd.,,tmdattt believed that plaintiff's father was b.q>ing himself ta RDC f;8Sh and hrvontory without permission. Further. plaintiff notes that the subject note (whidt it. •a.ccording to plainti~ an I..O.U.) makes no l'Cference to collatetaf or any of the. taets: alleged by defendant in S\l'Pl'Oft of the counterclaims. 4 Printed: 11212015 [* 5] 1503211998 Decision and order dtd 1116114 Page 29 of 85 Additionally" plaintiff asserts that the o®ntercla&ns are t:Une.-:b.wred. ~tfically, plaintiffnotes \hd, B$ allesed in the countetelaims, bis father's wrongful acts oceutred no later t!han 1996. Plaintiff reasons that ~defendant did not atscrt b:ts cOUDterclaimi until Nqvember of 2001, the coantetclail:n$ are time-hatred by the applicable lbnitatiOQ period!' For these reasons, plaintiffcon~ th$I he k entitled to an order granting bim summary judgment dismissing lhe subject counterelaim!Ji and that, th~t this court should grant his motion. MJ'IOIU!lrb Mad.e B1 IN/elltltRd la $11J1111Rf O/«lllsMatkJn In support of his motion fur summary juc!gm«tt diSluissing the~ complaint. defendant first argues th4t tho subp:t note: is Ulle1tf~ u amatt<:r as~rts that the subject :act.c does not. contain all)' waiYess of defenses. mlaw. ~ anc.l asserts that lack of consideration is a viable defense to perf0l't,l'll.1l.el. SpeciftcaUy~ defendant points out that the note does not describe an.)' a:msiderati®- nor does the note state that it was c:xcouted "for value teeeived." Indeed, claims defendfJ.Jlt. plaintiff& purported oonsideration is an alleged~ debt_ lncumd by defendant 41[dJU.ring ~late 8Ql''S and 9(1s'*toplaintif:rs father at the time the note was executed. Oefandllnt asaerts that this alleged debt does not constirute considenttion for the note, executed in 2000; spe¢ifieally, defendant argLleJI that ''past consideration is no oonsidera:ti'on... Thus1 reQOns d'Ofendant; the al~ note is 6 Plaintiff nr.&led the a.ffimmti.Ye dd'eose of an expired limita.tio~ period in his r•y to defendant's~ s Printed: 11212015 [* 6] 1503211998 Decision and order dtd 1t16/14 Page 30 or 85 defendant mgues that since the: note does not contain any reft:rence to1hc former debt, thert is no applicabloprovision-0rthe Ocnctal Obliptions Lawtbat n:nciem tht note enforceable. Defendant claims that, thererote, as a mattetaflaw, the note is UlieQfOrceBhle. ~ that plamtifrs cilaim. all IJm from the-un~ble note.~ concludes. tllat he is entitled to sumtl'laty jtldgrnent dismiaamg the amendad.oomplaint AltematiWiy, deftmdam assetts tluU he is entitled tQ 4QII1I!llUY judgment dismissing the complaint because of spoliation Of oYidence. Defem1a.nt states ·that it is undisputed that phllntifrs father took ponesainn of jewelry when RDC ceased 'business in the 19905. Defendant claims thatthi& was dmmwmntfb.llf, despiteplaitrtitrs assertion tbatibej~hy taken was calhitere.1 that seeulld 1he. aubjetl debt Dofetlda!lt &rpa· that,. uru.IR litbwpoint of view, the value ofU. S\lbjectjewelry ii a 44CentmI kiue" m matter. thl& Defendant notes· that plaintiff'$ dcpositiml ~- indicates that plaintiff' bas recently ~oaed of the subja:tjcwelry. Det'endant ~ that the ·items wm po$afbty worth more than the -.lleged indebt:cd.Jtess. and by $em.tg the itetn&, plaintiff has ditctrded key evidenQe that. would support defendlnfs afl"mnatlve- ddfenses mid GOUllterc!aims. Defendant acknowledges ~ in some ins~ a aegative- hrlbtente charge- is an appropriate sanction for spoliation af ovidenee. How~, contends clefendant, in thia case, sinee: plaintiff"" assertion that~ jtems were eollaterat for the loeo. is disputed) and alnee the plaintiffdisposed ofthe items without any independent inventory oraPPtaisal. defendant concludes that he C$l no longer prove hUJ aftirmatlvs defenses and COU!lterdaims. Thus, reasons defendant, summary judgment dismissing the complaint is the appropriate Rmedy 6 Printed: 11212015 [* 7] 1503211998 Decision and order dtd 1116114 Page 31or85 fot plaintiff"s att of spoliation. Accordingly, d.$ndant 8S\IKMI that his motion Rould be granted and plaintiff's: amertd.mi verified complaint should th11tfore be dimllssed. DI.reunion S~ judgment is a drastic fll'Jiedy that deprives a litigant of bis or her d9 Ui court and !d!OJlld thus only be 1111Ployed when there is no doubt as to Ule absence Qf triable issuesafroatmial fact (Xallvas v KJrahajj;l.4 AD3d493 {ZOOS]! Htt also Andfe v~. 35 NY2d 361, 364 [1974)). Howevor,, a motion fon~jw.igment will be granted if, upon alt the papers and proof sub.mi~ ·the <il!USe of AQtiQU or. dctbnse ·is estahll$hod sufiioiently to w;tmnt. directiagjadg:mcm in favor of any perty as a UQJ.tter of law (CPUl 3212 [bJ; Gilbert Frank. Carp. v Fetlerttl 1'111. Co., 70 NYad 966, 961 [l.90]; Ztlc..,.,,,,,,, \.l City a/New Ym-~ 49N¥2d SS?, 562 [1980]) and the·pariy opposing the motiM for summary judgment fails to produce evidellti4Q' proof in a.dmissiblf roan sufficient to establish the existence of rnatetial issues of fact (4.lwus v Prospect~, 61NY2d120) ~14 [19861 citing Zmciemkm, 49 NY'U Ill $62). The court denies beth motions ..Since lta,ppem that~bP not b=u deposedi s~ judgment should not be grantod; each motion c-auld properly be dcoic¢ on this independent ltround (CPLR 3212 ff); ree tll10 Harvey ll N'llJJI&, 61 AD3d 935 [2009}: SportieJlo v Cl'ty ofNt1W York, 6 AOOd 411 {2004}~ ~J.tm "New Tork City Tr. Auth.,, 3.03 AD2d 713 (2003]; Rajan v IMlsr,, 300 AD2d 463 [7002]). Additionally~ plaintitrs motion for summary judgment dismissq defendant's oounterclaims as time-barred shwld also be denied on itS merits. it,esolWig, as it must, an 7 Plinled: 11212015 [* 8] 1503211998 Decision ano order did 1116114 Page 32 of 85 infetences bt favor ofdefendant oppothtsplaintttrs motion (see e.g. DarNal v Del'tm" 74 AD3d 729. 730 {20101 citin&Pecll'SO# "'Di:J }f{c!Jrida, uc. 6' AD3d 895 [2009];. Mame,vev v PilevS'ky, 283 Amd 469 [2001 ]), t.tds court~ J'QJl'UlWily accept plaintifrs argument that the facts a,lleged mthe .S\lbjeot ~laims are "'spurious". or false. the purposes A~ingly. for ot plaintttrs motion. this CJ)dft mu.st uccept that defendant and plafmitT'a decedent were eq\lal partners fo ltDC hm l 99J to l!>tlt and may uot sumtmlrily rule on wn.tlwplainttff's decedent wrqfuUy RizedRDC ·itetnl and cash.i ~.and again tesolving all int'ermeei .in .favor ofdefendantln oppositi.Qn to plaintifrs moti<m, the lllcged debt and whether the items retained by decedetttwereintended as collateml accutmg tbedebt relate to ddendant1s ~aims. ~[C]laitm cnddefenses that arise ottt ofthe same transacdon u ac!abnm«ted inihe complaint are ~otbam:d by the statuto oflimitations Wfft. though an ind.epemlent action by Counterclaims that would otbenrise be barred by the~ oflhnitations are not batted so long 1$ they arise. fl-om the. s"1fte 1mosactfan dt ~as the primary claim" {'1iA.NY Jur 2d.t Llmitations e<l Laehea f 308~ owng (lllliano 1 11 /Wliano, 30 AD3d 737 f2006]; Unsutpri1ingly1 plaintift" dlip'l';ltes the deftmdtttt'• allegation that £be debt relate$ to a bDsimsa relatim:iship ~ defendant and plaintiff's father. Specifically. p~ avers that neither he nor his father "bad access to R.DC's ~nor did we even have keys.to tme•s nftiQJ, not that we woltld goth.ere anyway. ADJwiY, m.yfatberwas thb one lettding the money. Defimdantwas the one taking the moneyP, This com\ ho\¥evcr:. ~ summarily credit u truthful plaintift's sta.tcznentS, that contradict the ~made mdehdalJt• ll C(lantm:claima, since "the credt"bili~ of persons possessed ofexclusive knowledge of the facts should llOJ' be determined ·bf aft'idavits" (Krupp v.Aetna Lt/# & c~ 101AD2d.2S~262 [1984]). c•. 8 [* 9] 1503211998 Decision and order did 1116114 Page33of 86 Wicnca vLaFlo.tCM~ 3J Misc 3d 9?3 [20 I lJ; Meum,erv Mlntn!Simzl Mlldioal ~:nter•.119 AD2d 344 [20011). Therefore, since~ i~ action to recover the money !eat was timely commenced, dtfcmdant"11:mlated ~are tlr.nely hrterposcd. Moreover,, GWrt if the counterelahni would h,ave .been t:Une..barred if btoqght as an independent a«ioti. s•[u.Jnder·CPLll 2tlJ. fd), claims and defenses that atist-0\lt of the same transaction as e claim asserted in the eo.rnpluint are not httetl by the Stanite of,Limitations, mm though an ~dependeilt ~n by ddimdant Jltigbthave bc:en time-barred at the time the action wag oommem:ed •.. [t]hr: pravmons of'CPLR 203 (d) allow a delmidant ta aumt an otherwise untimely tlailn wJDch arose outGfthe ume t:l'iUilactioJlS alhsged in.'the OOJJUJlaint. hut only as a shield fortecmJpment puiposes. 11'.ld does not permit the defendant IQ obtain affirmative relief9" (Carlson,, Zi~ 6l J\Dld 112. 774 [2009] ~al quotations omitted}, fJlQtingBltloltifieldv~kl., 97NY2.d 181, 193 [;2001] md/JflMflle vDeMU/ll, S AD3d 428~ 429 {2004]; an ll/stJ DeHaFvndlng Corp, v Murr.laugh, 6 ADld S71, 371-S?l [2004]~ Rotht:#Jhild v lm:huwilJI '1'#8.t .&Julp. Co.1 203 AD2d 271~ 272 [199~1}. F-0r these ~. thi& court denies plaintit'f's motion for ammwyjudgn.:ieat di&11'llsting defendant 1 1 counterclaims as tiate"'~ 'I'hf: co~ also denit3 the motion of dtfendrmt. As stated ab()v' defcodellt bas not appeared for :an examination bcn'ore trial; defentllmt,.s motion for $ummary judgment should he denj~d on this basis alone {Yeruahalmi & A~~.. UP\! Weatkuu:/Oversetu CQrp., 21 AD3d 1091, I0.99 [.200S] [dofendantll)Otiml for~ judgme:nt denied a:sprem.atnre because it "many of the essential iuuea of tact in this case are within the lm.owledge of 9 Prin!ed.11212015 [* 10] Page 34 <>f 85 1503211998 Decision and order dtd 1/16/14 individua!:&wbo hadnet;yet bean ~edJ. cftin&Plaro ~, 11Kim~208 AD2d7D4 [19941; Lewis vAgency R.sra--11..Car, l6S AD2d 435(1990]), Puttbcnno~. this court ~e:cts defenmt•s aontention that tile allege.d note is unenforceable ea a matter of law. to be suro1 and as the-Appellate Division has already observ~ defentlant may ultilQ$ely convmc:o • tdet of fret that. his aftittn!Uivo defenac or Jaek of consideration discharges bi.a o&lipon under tbe alleged i1Qte (Samel. v ~ 79 AD3d I oos. 1oos [2010] ["the def~ raised a triahle mm ef fact with respect to ibc bana fide defense of lack of C011Sit.ieration for the note'']). Alla. defendant corrtetl)' mtes lb.at the alleged note ••c1oes not state that defendant received ·ftlnds from plamttff m that tht note wt.s: eMCUted for value received" (Mo:.ttro Y Can-1>'1'1 296 AD?d 804~ 802 [2002)). However, the fact that laek of·consideration is a viable dtfense· does not. render the :alleg«i note unenforceable; instetd, ••cofiSidera,tion of pawl evidenee ln ·sudi a ead· is proper• (Md1811¥J, 296 Amd at sol, citing De Vito v BB,Yamtn. 24! ADld 600 [ 1997]; .Atf'rrontlacle &mlc. v Si:mmom, 210 AD2d 65 l [1994]; 5.8 NY Jur .2d, Bvi'1cnce 1IOd 'Winesscs § S16; of. Schmitzv MacIJonaltl~ 250 AD2d 533 [1998], htrlenieti92 'NV2d 809 [1998]). Sinte1he subject note. lib the aote in Mas!tro, i1 '"not unambiguous on is face" (Mastro, 296 AD2d at !02}, t1w: raolution-0f any ambiguity is fot tbC: ttier of fact (Pellot 11 Psllott 305 AD24 478, 497 [2003], ifiting State o/New YOl'f v H~ /1111.em. Co.~ 66 NY2d 669I198SJ; see also FapeclJ, 111.c. v Genrral C'1atings Teaknologiesf 101AD2d2602, 610 [1915:] r'lf proqn at trial. laek of consideration ts a perfectly viable def.nse"j; c.f. Shmiel v WilHams, l l6 ·Misc 464, 466 (1930) ["owt found to.u. instrumcnt "constitutes a11 adtni1$sion of every element 10 Pr1nted: 11212015 [* 11] 1503211998 Decision and order did 1116114 Page 35 of 65 . ·~t:·..,:.·1·:f-~~~"t·"-~f<f''i'l'.,;t.'t-tf1"~n wbi~b is. necessary to create a •lid de&t. ineluditlg a consid'etation11)! Por flese reaso111t this eourt rejects deftildant 1 ASSertion that ·t.hc aI1eged ma i& mmnf'omeable 11 a matter of 1 law. Lutly, this CQUtt rejecta defmdant's assertion. that plaintift disposec:l <>f key evidence. VteWhtg tm;: record in die light most f.vorahle te plainttft tire ~ of defendant» s motion for summatyju.dpent (Scktr(/fe v S-muruParH.r, 8! AD14 867 [2011 J, citing Rizk 11 Cohe1t, 73 NY2d 93' [1919}; Jt.lbllms!i "l«tpa'!Je. 14 Amd 484 [200SJ), the ltCJDI retained byAndrew Samet was collateral, kept ta teCUre defendant•• debt Defm4ut disputes that Andrew Samet took }>01$USRm of tiul items to 8C1W 115 coJlatml fbl' defendant's debt. b\lt such an. assertion contradictinl pl~s ttate:ntetlb pres1nts. an ip\Jl' of credibiliJ;y.. wbidl this com may not resolve on summacy judgment (Forrert v Jewish Guild/of' l/ul BIJ.nr4 3 NY3d 295, 314-3 lS [2004] [•etedibfU1J detc:~ons. the wcigbing· of the evidence, and the dtawing of legitimate :infermecs from. the f$3 are jury functloos~ ®t those at ajudge .... on ,.,. motion for s~ jud.gment'iI, quoting btlerson v l.ttertJI Lob/Jy, lnx:., 477 us 242, 2.SS [1986}; '#8• also &:titt V/J!>Jfgl& Poel' J;wth.~ .294 Amd 348 [2002J). Therefbre. and again providing plaintiff opposing defendant's motion tlle benclit of favorable infere.neea., plaintiff's farhet ltld defcndut entered lDlo a seoured ltlftllctiQJJ.; Defendant ci~ Gtlfmtm v Gutmtill (~I AD3d 709 [2006D tbr the proposition that bis alleged past indebtednul to plaintiff's :fath.cl' is itliUfficicnt coQSidm.tion fQt the note. However, this court no• tbat the plain.ti.ffa in Outman were not allowed equital>lo telietbec;au.(e tt1ey· SOUlht the~ with unclean bands (Id at 11.ll). In this action, tbm;· ~ ao ~that plaintiff may not seek recovery OJ.this first cause of action, soUDdinQ .in monies had and ~if the alleaed note is found to be unenforceable. . 8 11 [* 12] 15032/1998 Decision and orderdtd 1/16114 I " Page 36 of 85 . the subject items were: held by plaintiff's father as ~ty ·for the stlttl& la'll to defendant. and plaintiff, as suc~essm·in-interest.. bad the right ·to dispoe of ·Ile i~ in any ~ rtUO)labfo ~(Is• e.g. U Bqwt, Ne/Worf. UC v·Y£ll4ge in flw Wot:R4 Owners Corp., 19 AD3d 361 JO [20l<t}). Detimdanrs protestati®J (coutaineci in affirmatioM) to the 0011-.ry shnply taiSe issues o( fact anti b.11 1;1.otfor:t for ~ jwtgment may properly be4tmied. on this 3~ ground. .Lastly; dcfcnc!ant tias nttt detnonstrated 1hat be is entitled to ~ judgnlmot against plaintiff u a sanction for spoliation Q;f ~denae. ''The Supnme conn us ·broad ditcretlon in daterrnining What, if any~ sandion lho:old be b~ tbr 1poUJtion of evidenGO" (Lenmv Nir:'.t Q,vm. Im:., 90 AD3<i6181 618[20lf];1ua1»ok11Jr'16tfti¥.Ro.tl.1 .AD3d 437, 43.8 [2004}). Heie. tb1' cwrt. me.etc.be$ its broad tHscretion and dedilies to impose any samtion. First, sartettons tor spoliation ate inappmpriato where ·them is no ptejlldice to the other part)" {44A NY Jur 2dJ Disdosute § 427). Defendant clahns that u is ptejudi'eed by plaintitrs disposition of the items, ht# this cmu:t rqje¢tS defendant¥s contention. Defendilllt (Whd .ttached an iaventoq of the ttoms to bis papers M an .exhibit) knows \Vltat the item& are and can testify .((llld./or call appraism to testlty) lboot theirvelue; lhU$. d'efendant has ~information'' about tlJe :items, and retains the'. ability to def'end against plaintifrs comphllat and aiert counterclaimS (id.). Acootdingly. ddmdant. is ttot '~udicially bereft of appropriate mtans ta eonftont a elalm with incisive e\lid«leeq (Klrklam:l v New Yark City 8011.$. Autk. 236 ADld 170. 174 [l997J (internal quoiltlon .omitted)). Oefendant•s motion is 4emed on this eltemative ground. 12 Printed: 11212015 [* 13] 1503211998 DeciSion and Ofder dtd 1116114 Page 37 of 85 ........ •' Far the foi:egoing reasons, this eowt denic;s both the motim of plaiatfffMiebaet Samot and tbe motion of defendant Isaac I. Binson. The foregofttg c~tutes tht decision and order of the court ENTB~

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.